OT - I don't _hate_ McMansions
amb-plug at bradfords.org
Thu Jun 26 21:42:40 MDT 2008
Thus said Stuart Jansen on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:34:20 MDT:
> On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 21:51 -0600, Andy Bradford wrote: > They are not
> an option because even some low-income people want a home.
> I think you meant house. A house is not a home. An apartment,
> townhouse or even an RV can be a home.
Yes, thank you for the correction. I did mean house.
> Never heard of democracy? Huh, that's too bad 'cause it's been working
> pretty well for us for a couple hundred years.
If democracy is so grand, why don't we go full out and practice a true
democracy (which America is not)? Last I checked, the Constitution
established a republican form of government. This is not one in which
majority rules, which is really just a glorified form of mob rules. This
is one in which we seek to establish just laws; although lately, as in
the last century or so, we seem to have lost sight of that principle.
Would you advocate true democracy?
> Never heard of trial and error, the scientific method, wisdom from
> experience, or even common sense?
Yes, trial and error is fine where all interactions are voluntary. This
is what happens in a society in which all interactions are voluntary and
government is restricted to protecting people and property. Innovations
in laws are not fine. I'm sorry, but I will never accept being a guinea
pig for law makers; my liberty and freedom, even life are much more
important than that. Of course most feel its alright to use government
to force others to do what they think is the ideal, simply because they
are the ``majority.''
> A hundred years ago we didn't know that creating high-density
> low-income housing like the projects was a bad idea, now based on
> experience we do.
According to who? So we have a few people here that think high-density,
low-income housing developments are distasteful. As long as these
developments arise out of voluntary exchange and interaction, what
exactly is wrong with it? If it doesn't work out, we'll people will lose
their interest, money, etc... and eventually we'll have either a ghost
town or it will be sold off for more efficient uses. What exactly can
government contribute to this process? And if its ``planning'' who are
they and how did they get so wise?
Is there anything worse in housing than government subsidized housing
projects? Maybe this is where the phrase, ``piece of HUD'' arose?
> A pure free market does not magically converge instantly to
> perfection, it takes time and along the way there are bumps.
> Government should be given the same opportunity.
There's a big difference between voluntary interaction and government.
One involves peaceful interactions, the other involves force, even
deadly force. This kind of power only should be used when there is
aggression against someone's person or property. It shouldn't be used
when someone decides they want a smaller/larger house on less than
desirable lot sizes.
> You'll need more tools.
This is the eternal cycle and end of bad government. Replace one bad
tool with more bad tools. Haven't you ever wondered why bad regulations
require yet more bad regulations to fix them? And the cycle never ends.
Eventually things fall apart (Rome anyone?) and the whole process starts
Speaking of tools, I found the following books very enlightening:
The first speaks of the tool called government. The second is a much
more well known book by Frederic Bastiat. Both are short and easy to
> Government is a tool to make capitalism possible and limit the damage
> when it goes wrong.
So basically government created laws so capitalism could exist? Or
maybe people, desiring to protect their person and property invented
government? And then capitalism naturally arose? The history of mankind
is a history of man struggling to live free from coercion and aggression
and to keep what is justly acquired. Again I ask, what is the proper
role of government?
9:42pm up 43 min, 1 user, load average: 1.26, 1.17, 1.07
More information about the PLUG